Thanks Doc Logic. Interesting theory on his having confidential disclosures, but I doubt that would hold him from investing for a long time unless someone really screwed up. And from my own experience, that seems less than likely, but as I said in my points previously, lots of possibilities are available.
With regard to "averaging down". Great for individual shareholders or people trading their own money. Lots of great logic there. The issue is LIABILITY. While you or I might discount the Phase V report (including all of the implications and allegations therein and in other articles, and risks including delisting, liabilities and previously unsettled obligation to Cognate) and the decline in shares as a buying opportunity or an opportunity to average down, when you manage other people's money, with a very conservatively stated investment objective, averaging down in a company with the unfortunate press that was manufactured here by, I believe people with ill will, is still not always logical - given the constraints that might or might not apply, at any given time - now or perhaps previously or even on a continuing basis. We simply can't know from here what is constraining him entirely, until he chooses to act, either investing or divesting.
His non-action is not logically something one can logically extrapolate from (unless one has insider information) to a logical conclusion. That was the core of my key point, consistently. Why I'm having to write about why he SHOULD be investing, I have no idea. I'd love it.
My point is there are very logical reasons why he might choose NOT TO DIVEST (an action when you have a fiduciary duty in this kind of circumstance) and yet not immediately buy more, and from that, one can still feel some comfort, seeing him still invested, though it's not a buy, and it's not intentionally something communicated to anyone else - it's just an independent determination that he did not need to divest, from those facts. I think that circumstance alone speaks volumes, to a careful observer. It doesn't change the supply of shares out there, or tell the investor community, "Hey, I think it's good, coast is clear, you should invest!" - which is what many on bulletin boards are looking for. That's not his responsibility. His responsibility is not to lose money and make money following, for the most part, the objectives of his fund (as legally stated in the disclosure forms, contracts and policies that set forth the basis upon which people invest with him). As individual investors, we could think, but wouldn't it be better, if he believes what we believe, if he made some moves that gave everyone confidence? It would benefit his shares AND ours... there are laws around that and contractual obligations and potential liabilities if that were his primary objective. Plus he likely has various constraints that one could speculate upon that would make that a silly and not very professional thing for him to do, without more reasons to invest.
It's great for someone risking their own money, to be enthusiastic. We will just lose our money. There is no liability to other people, no contracts, no policies, no promises or statements about what we intend to do with that money. It's just us. The more typical move would be to DIVEST, for a fiduciary in these circumstances, if he took those other allegations 100% seriously. He did not divest. To me, that's a far stronger endorsement than further buys, though I do understand that ordinary traders and investors may not fully understand the complete nature of what I'm saying. What is commonly thought perhaps by people with a strong view here, is not always the best thing to do from a legal perspective, even if the money manager might generally be in agreement with your view.
And, in the specific context I was discussing, concluding that certain inactions led to a conclusion that he agreed with Phase V, was not logical. For him as a fiduciary, given the ambiguity, and given various constraints that affect his fiduciary role, his failure to divest in the face of all of that, speaks far more strongly to me, than his failure to buy more. He already owns a large piece of the company. They also have constraints as to how much of a percentage of a company they may buy, particularly if it doesn't meet their stated investment objectives, which in this case, I believe is dividend income.
Again, people can speculate all they'd like, I'm just trying to add some further information, perspective and details that should inform such speculative musings. I didn't say any one thing, I think it's a constellation of facts that could have, may not now, or may, constrain him from participating at the level people on bulletin boards think would be great and very helpful. I could post a whole host of hypotheticals that I'd really rather not post, incase he or anyone that works with him reads them. I'd rather not constrain him with visions of the possible risks he might be taking. I'd love to see him invest, I can imagine, from real, concrete experiences, why he might be sidelined, in very many ways, even if he is just as enthusiastic as every long on this board who eats, drinks, sleeps and mutters in fevered dreams, of NWBO's success.
